Ruderman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruderman v. City of New York

142 A.D.3d 863, 37 N.Y.S.3d 543

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 27, 2016

Docket1699 651466/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 A.D.3d 863 (Ruderman v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruderman v. City of New York, 142 A.D.3d 863, 37 N.Y.S.3d 543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about September 22, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the order did not expressly address plaintiff’s retaliation claim, it unambiguously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. CPLR 2219 (a) provides the court with “broad leeway” as to the form of the order, and the parties addressed this claim in their motion papers (Corteguera v City of New York, 179 AD2d 362, 363 [1st Dept 1992]).

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under federal and state civil rights law and under the New York City Human Rights Law was properly dismissed because the amended complaint failed to provide a basis for a reasonable jury to conclude that the job offer that was extended to plaintiff was rescinded because of his inquiry to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). There is no dispute that the job offer was re-confirmed, even after defendant City of New York’s employees were aware of the inquiry (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 313 [2004]).

There is also no dispute that plaintiff failed to complete the routine paperwork, which stated that this might result in not being appointed to the position that was offered. Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a causal connection between the adverse employment action and his EEOC inquiry or that the stated reason for rescinding the job offer was a pretext for impermissible retaliation (see Treglia v Town of Manlius, 313 F3d 713, 721 [2d Cir 2002]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Richter, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about September 22, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the order did not expressly address plaintiff’s retaliation claim, it unambiguously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. CPLR 2219 (a) provides the court with “broad leeway” as to the form of the order, and the parties addressed this claim in their motion papers (Corteguera v City of New York, 179 AD2d 362, 363 [1st Dept 1992]).

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under federal and state civil rights law and under the New York City Human Rights Law was properly dismissed because the amended complaint failed to provide a basis for a reasonable jury to conclude that the job offer that was extended to plaintiff was rescinded because of his inquiry to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). There is no dispute that the job offer was re-confirmed, even after defendant City of New York’s employees were aware of the inquiry (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 313 [2004]).

There is also no dispute that plaintiff failed to complete the routine paperwork, which stated that this might result in not being appointed to the position that was offered. Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a causal connection between the adverse employment action and his EEOC inquiry or that the stated reason for rescinding the job offer was a pretext for impermissible retaliation (see Treglia v Town of Manlius, 313 F3d 713, 721 [2d Cir 2002]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Richter, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 863, 37 N.Y.S.3d 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruderman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack